Does Man Need a Moral Code?

[Dawkinsrocks]

OK, for those who do not understand the fact of evolution....here goes.

The fact of evolution describes how species adapt to survive and this pervades everything that the specides does. Anything that contributes to the success of the gene pool is good and everything that doesn't is bad.

Here is an example.

A woman is statistically more likely to forgive an unfaithful male partner than the other way around.

The evolutionary explanation of this is that the woman always knows that her offspring carries 50% of her genes whereas a man can never be certain and so is more sensitive to unfaithfulness. He could end up rearing a child with none of his genes inside.

Here is another example.

A woman makes a man go through a courtship ritual before she will let him **** her.
This is because a woman can only get pregnant once a year or thereabouts and so once she gives up her scarce eggs and becomes less able to support herself when pregnant she needs evidence that the man will not run off and spread his non-scarce semen with every woman he can but rather will stick around to rear his offspring.

Evolution is what we describe as a moral code.

We dress it up in all sorts of ridiculous ways like the ten commandments but really all they are is a reflection of our survival instincts.

 

[Rhodri]

I disagree, I think morals are "learned" for the far majority of humans.

I believe the foundation is already there. Society and upbringing reinforces it.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, for those who do not understand the fact of evolution....here goes.

The fact of evolution describes how species adapt to survive and this pervades everything that the specides does. Anything that contributes to the success of the gene pool is good and everything that doesn't is bad.

Here is an example.

A woman is statistically more likely to forgive an unfaithful male partner than the other way around.

The evolutionary explanation of this is that the woman always knows that her offspring carries 50% of her genes whereas a man can never be certain and so is more sensitive to unfaithfulness. He could end up rearing a child with none of his genes inside.

Here is another example.

A woman makes a man go through a courtship ritual before she will let him **** her.
This is because a woman can only get pregnant once a year or thereabouts and so once she gives up her scarce eggs and becomes less able to support herself when pregnant she needs evidence that the man will not run off and spread his non-scarce semen with every woman he can but rather will stick around to rear his offspring.

Evolution is what we describe as a moral code.

We dress it up in all sorts of ridiculous ways like the ten commandments but really all they are is a reflection of our survival instincts.

While that was a bit vulgar, I do appreciate you giving an explanation of what you were talking about. Thank you.
---------------------------------------

For those who have been willing to participate this far, I would like to ask:

Where do Morals come from?

The ten commandments were mentioned, so I'll mark off Religion as one source. Albeit a general one, the moral codes are codified in their respective religious texts and easily spelled out.

Society seems to be a common theme... But its too general. In what way does society instill morals and from what segments of society? Religious texts spell out the moral codes but where are the moral codes that come from society laid out?

Also, it was brought up that individuals will have different ideas about morality - I'd like to look at where the Religious and Societal moralities overlap and where they are different.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What we call morals are just the articulation of survival instincts.

They are nothing more or less.

Unfortunately humans seem to be burdened with the need to think there is something special about their species and so they dress up the above in all sorts of grandiose ways.

But I am afraid that our 'moral compass' is nothing more than our evolutionary compass.

 

[Cookie Parker]

Society is a product of man. Man is not inherently evil, man is inherently self-interested.

To the extent of survival, perhaps. But I think man in innately a pack animal and seeks the well being of others.

 

[Cookie Parker]

I guess I am of a slightly different school of thought on this. I think society is what enables humans to live in overall general harmony. If you took "society" out of the equation and humans resorted to simple nature and survival, I am afriad humans would resort to what in society we have come to know as "inhumane".

In society, are you referring to the "pack" which must stay together? I think the societies of the Native American Indian were such a pack. As to taking society out of man and there being just survival and "simple nature", I believe that "simple nature" would still encompass compassion, love and a need for companionship.

 

[Chip]

'Man will likely benefit from a true moral code until everyone lives from their heart, then the moral code, as a behavior controller, will be redundant.

Everyone is conceived naturally good.

The world's socioeconomic system -- called the Money System -- is evil and the causing foundation of all immoral behavior.

The Money System causes people to leave their heart and live from their mind.

Since only the heart is the rightful ruler of one's life, the mind breaks down in the attempt, splitting between ego and superego.

One's ego will commit immoral acts at times to secure needs and desires.

The moral code, infused from the outside into the superego, facilitates the ying-yang behavior balance to greatly reduce immoral behavior.

If the heart was in charge in everyone, the ego and superego would disintegrate as it now is, differentiate, and re-synthesize into a singular heart-serving thinking aparatus.

Since the true moral code comes from the heart anyway, the moral code would then be superfluous.

But for everyone to take that journey to heart, the world around them must indeed be a safe place conducive to such a journey ...

... And for the world to be a safe place, many heart-centered people must have worked to create a life-affirming socioeconomic system that reflects the true moral code.

This paradox makes such transitions very slow, with the few truly courageous initially leading the way.

Until we are all back in our hearts, we need those who live from their mind to be infused with the true moral code, if we all are to have a chance to make this transition in today's dangerous nuclear age.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The heart?

The heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing round the body.

Man is not born good man is born morally neutral. Behaviour that is counter evolutionary is bad and pro-evolutionary is good.

It has always been like that and it always will be.

 

[Chip]

The heart?

The heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing round the body.

Yes, for literalists, the heart is the pump that keeps the blood flowing.

But for those who grasp the reality and meaning of the centering and governing influence of the thalamus and hypothalamus at the center of the brain's cerebral-limbic system, about which historic literary figurative allegory and metaphor have shown to refer, recognize that the word heart has a greater meaning that is relevant to the matter at hand.

Man is not born good man is born morally neutral.

We are conceived and develop, hopefully, and without damaging intervention, to be as "designed", so to speak.

That design is reflected in our true moral code as the nature of the human heart.

If we assigne a value of "good" to the true moral code, then we can apply the value of "good" to our natural designed state.

Neutral ... may be an objectivist myth.

Behaviour that is counter evolutionary is bad and pro-evolutionary is good.

Hmmm ... an interesting statement ... but the large global generality of this statement begs for more detail, just for the fun of seeing what's really there.

It has always been like that and it always will be.

From Darwin's lips to your ears?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You missed my point. The heart as you use it is a metaphor for the soul and there is no soul.

Like there is no mind.

Only brain.

Mind and soul are constructs of the arrogant speciesists

 

[Chip]

The heart as you use it is a metaphor for the soul and there is no soul.

No, I do not use the heart as a metaphor for the soul.

Yes, there is no soul, as religiously defined as that part of us that may have lived before our material presence and may continue to live after our material presence is dead.

The true definition of soul, however, is simply the part of us that feels.

Neuropsychologists now recognize that part of us as the right side of the brain (cerebral-limbic system) in western culture; that is the accurate definition of soul, the part of us that feels.

Like there is no mind.

No, the human mind is very real.

It is the part of us that thinks.

Neuropsychologists now recognize the mind as the left side of the brain (cerebral-limbic system) in western culture; that is the accurate definition of mind, the part of us that thinks.

Only brain.

There is more going on in the brain than you might ... think.

Mind and soul are constructs of the arrogant speciesists

I couldn't disagree with you more.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

When you say feel I feel you mean think;-)

The brain thinks.

There is no mind.

If you argue for the mind I might ask you to show it to me.

 

[Chip]

When you say feel I feel you mean think;-)

Whatever you believe.

The brain thinks.

The brain also feels ... and the brain believes.

The brain senses, perceives, conceives, cogitates and motivates.

And the brain provides us with consciousness.

I've always found it useful to avoid assigning too many inappropriate limitations to the brain.

There is no mind.

Never mind. ... ...

If you argue for the mind I might ask you to show it to me.

The mind is invisible.

How could I "show" it too you?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I don't mind what you feel regarding the brain.

I am conscious that your idea of the brain is a commonly held thought.

But in my world everything is physical and what we call mind, thoughts, emotions and consciousness are nothing more or less than brain impulses. Which is why they all go away when the brain stops working.

But I don't brain if you don't brain;-)

 

[zakiyeh]

This is a religious view:
Man has a moral code inside him. I don't believe that to be all animal instinctions. I believe man has a mirror inside him showing all the good features of God, but he forgets it and there sits a thick layer of dust on it, so there is need for some remembrance. That's the job of the prophets! if forgoten, the moral codes will help the soul to clear the heart...that's besides their role of stopping the ruin in the first place.